Much like Down Periscope is the most accurate movie ever made about the nuclear Navy.
You’d have to be paying very, very close attention to find those tiny differences. So long as the hull number is between 68 and 75, they’re pretty much indistinguishable, aside from some differences in island layout from about 73 onward (IIRC).
And nothing makes SWOs look badass like Steve McQueen taking names with an axe and a BAR like in Sand Pebbles.
Woah, it’s a true honor.
I can’t tell you how much I’ve enjoyed your F18 mod for ArmA 1.
Unfortunalety by the time the AH-64 for ArmA 2 got released I was fully immersed in DCS and never really got around playing with it. I’m glad to know there’s a ArmA 3 port as I lost my A2 DVDs. Will definitely give it a shot.
You people, the modders, are the unspoken heroes of modern video games. Your passion and dedication has brought so many hours of enjoyment to so many people, and for free!
Thank you so much!
Thanks! I got out of modding for ArmA a couple years ago, but Nodunit is still doing it on an official basis. He was part of the team that made the Jets DLC, which was inspired by the old Super Bug for ArmA.
Unfortunately, the AH-64D for ArmA3 isn’t as complete an experience as it was for ArmA2, but it’s still a unique, if quirky, little toy for the game.
ah, I’ll really have to found those A2 DVDs then.
I didn’t know Nodunit was working for BI, that’s a great news!
Man I wish BI would develop an appetite for single unit, mid level complexity add-ons like the Apache. They could be the Train Sim DLC madness of land warfare!
I would be so over that! Somewhere between current arma and DCS with multiplayer coop fun… oh dear…
I hold great hope for CAP 2 to be honest!
Yeah, it sure seems like there’s never been a replacement for the mid-fidelity sims we had in the 90s. I wish TKOH had done a bit better for BI because that would have been the perfect platform for that sort of thing.
OK…this is the DCS 2.5 Update Thread…so when @NineLine puts out an update notice, it is really an update for the DCS 2.5 Open Beta…correct?
What is the general time between something appearing in the Beta and appearing in “regular” DCS 2.5?
I assume the whole part of appearing in the Beta is for Beta Testers to take it out for a few spins…test the new improvements…make sure they didn’t break something else of that there is not a completely unanticipated rare bug…so no I’m not puling, just more curious than anything else.
Not necessarily. The current ED release cadence is a release to the beta branch Wednesday 1 and then that same update is pushed to Wednesday 2. If anything is work shatteringly bad is found in the beta branch and is easily fixable, you might see a hot fix during the intervening Friday or Monday. If it’s super bad and not easily fixable, the release branch update might be delayed.
If the version number is different than the release from last week, chances are it’s a beta. If it’s the same, then it’s release.
Generally speaking though, the only difference is people who steadfastly adhere to the release branch get a week of warning for any bugs that are going to hit them.
Honestly with how quickly the cadence is rolling right now, there’s no real point to the two branches other than peace of mind for those who don’t parle vous version control.
Got it. Now I understand. Thanks!
Well…while I parele vous many things computer (MS in Information Systems Management from Navy Postgraduate School), version control being one of them, I decided to go with the regular 2.5 rather than the Open Beta. As you mentioned, one week is pretty darn quick in Beta testing time…which tells me ED has a very solid development process. Still for me it is the, admittedly low, off chance of a “shatteringly bad” issue (that will be caught in Beta) that I’ll stick with the regular version, even if it keeps me from trying out the cool new stuff for another week or so.
The non zero and increasing number of erroneously reported bugfixes that are in the changelog yet not actually present in the delivered update, across consecutive beta and release cycles, suggests the contrary.
I don’t mind that it takes them time to squash the bugs. I do that for a living, it can be rough. I do however prefer my entomological reports to be accurate.
Oh…so…um…yeah…I’ll stick with the regular version…look for something on Wednesday, got it…
Yeah you risk averse old men keep telling eachother how awful it is someone borked a changelog or branch merge while I’m happily zapping crawlers with the secrit beta IR mavericks from my hornet. Yeah baby, yeah!
I am the youngest in my virtual squadron, and the only who wants to use the release version of DCS World.
For all the things they are great at, that is something they consistently botch. I dont really understand, though. Errors can always happen but it seems like a somewhat conscious neglect.
The open beta really is the way to go. “Stable” isn’t so stable because they often include game-breaking bugs like the AGM-65E crash in the Harrier a couple months back. Were it actually stable I might say otherwise, but as it stands, one may as well just opt in.
Kinda pros and cons here really. A small geographically spread out team, transitioning from doing one-off game releases to being a ‘supported platform for 3rd parties’, early access communication policy out of necessity of having to release multi-year stuff for ongoing revenue, a big ol code base that probably has big chunks of it written by people who (a) didn’t intend it to be used like that and (b) who aren’t there any more, code originally not written for automated testing, plus a testing policy that resists automation (can you imagine the function points to cover in Flanker 2.0 plus 15 years of additions - it must be a technical debt like a cliff face). An ‘enthusiastic’ and details-oriented fan base.
I think we do ok.